MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1922793814 · doi:10.1002/lt.23806

Rationale of personalized immunosuppressive medication for hepatocellular carcinoma patients after liver transplantation

2013· review· en· W1922793814 on OpenAlexaff
Kan Chen, Kwan Man, Herold J. Metselaar, Harry L.A. Janssen, Maikel P. Peppelenbosch, Qiuwei Pan

Bibliographic record

VenueLiver Transplantation · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdenosine and Purinergic Signaling
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHepatocellular carcinomaImmunosuppressionLiver transplantationTransplantationDiseaseOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Liver transplantation is the only potentially curative treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that is not eligible for surgical resection. However, disease recurrence is the main challenge to the success of this treatment. Immunosuppressants that are universally used after transplantation to prevent graft rejection could potentially have a significant impact on HCC recurrence. Nevertheless, current research is exclusively focused on mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, which are thought to be the only class of immunosuppressive agents that can reduce HCC recurrence. In fact, substantial evidence from the bench to the bedside indicates that other classes of immunosuppressants may also exert diverse effects; for example, inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase inhibitors potentially have antitumor effects. In this article, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the potential effects of different types of immunosuppressants on HCC recurrence and their mechanisms of action from both experimental and clinical perspectives. To ultimately improve the outcomes of HCC patients after transplantation, we propose a concept and approaches for developing personalized immunosuppressive medication to be used either as immunosuppression maintenance or during the prevention/treatment of HCC recurrence.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiver TransplantationSame topicAdenosine and Purinergic SignalingFrench-language works237,207